So what about Quantum Break was risky? All you've done is said the name of the game and expected me to be floored by your response.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obsidian on why their Microsoft published XB1 RPG Stormlands got cancelled
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
So what about Quantum Break was risky? All you've done is said the name of the game and expected me to be floored by your response.
I don't understand. How is it that Sony can take a risk on a new RPG IP like Horizon: Zero Dawn, but Microsoft (with much deeper pockets) can't trust Obsidian with a new exclusive RPG?
The game could have potentially been great, and depending on the time frame - may have had some awesome Scorpio-only benefits that we could be discussing right now or in the near future, instead of Microsoft's shitty penchant for canceling projects that either A) Are not an FPS or B) Don't begin with titles "Gears of War", "Halo", or "Forza"
The game could have potentially been great, and depending on the time frame - may have had some awesome Scorpio-only benefits that we could be discussing right now or in the near future, instead of Microsoft's shitty penchant for canceling projects that either A) Are not an FPS or B) Don't begin with titles "Gears of War", "Halo", or "Forza"
Straight Edge
Member
And a company that never takes risks will stagnate.
If unionization would have allowed this game to be released, then unionization would probably be terrible for consumers because it would completely skew the financial underpinning of games.
As it is, I don't see what this has to do with unions at all. That would just make game development more expensive. There's nothing in this story that speaks to an issue unions would address.
And the critical flaw in your thinking is deciding that *this* game has to be a risk they take, let alone a smart risk to take. I can run a business to the ground just fine by taking all the risks I want.
Barry Burton
Member
They are businessmen, not creators.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Maybe because the concept and then the early development of Horizon looked a lot more promising than whatever Obsidian had cooking?
Who knows? We never even saw 1 millisecond of the game.
Had SB looked like Horizon do you think MS really would have cancelled it? I kinda doubt it.
UnemployedVillain
Member
And yet we got Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2 and Devil's Third, but I guess those were more about expanding the base and this RPG probably wouldn't have done so for the XB1
Yes, Nintendo completely changing what Zelda is like is pretty risky, wouldn't you think?
You're not even answering the question, instead answering questions with questions. Typical.
LordRaptor
Member
I mean... gameshop bargain bins are full of titles that got decent metacritic and sold like shit to show this has never been true.
BRocknRolla
Member
I agree that there's nothing in this about unions, but your conclusions about the effect of a union on development are likewise not based upon any reality presented here.
If this is the answer, the Xbox will eventually go down as the most bland place to play games. The "businessmen" need to understand the creative side of things or they aren't going to be very successful at their jobs.
few things. Guerilla is an internal Sony studio. They need work. The Killzone franchise is likely dead at this point. Putting them on something else isnt that risky. You can compare Guerilla to Rare. Kinect sports is dead. The studio needs something else to do. Hence we get a pirate game in sea of thieves. Which is a risky game in itself. Obsidian is an external studio that can be cut ties with fairly easily
Thebeardofknowledge
Banned
Awe did I hurt your plastic box ?
Mircosoft is a shit publisher this generation plain and simple. If you are a pub chasing nothing but pure profit/ next big franchise only then you're in the wrong fucking business.
No it isn't. Zelda changes all the time. It's expected of the franchise. Same with Mario. I didn't ask a question...I'm pointing out the games you named were no more riskier than what Microsoft put out.
I'm pointing out the double standard.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
This is nonsense.
I'm not defending Microsoft...however...they are allowed to start and end whatever agreements they have with developers based on whatever decisions they are making at the time.
If they are violating their contract with that developer...so be it. That's what lawyers are for...or payouts.
Microsoft DOES seem like a company that is quite low on "champions" at the moment. Clearly their corporate culture has created such and no doubt it will punish them in the end.
While I do agree that Sony takes more risk than Microsoft there's a pretty big difference between this game and Horizon.
For example, like Obsidian said, their game needed a champion, Horizon is being made by a first party dev, you can't get more connected than that.
Additionally, while I think Horizon looks awesome, it's a mainstream looking game in a mainstream genre, I'm pretty sure they're not worried about it selling badly. While Obsidian games are fantastic for the most part, their games tend to sell more to niche crowds, and I'd bet that they sell much better on PC's than consoles. A triple AAA version of their games is pretty risky.
You honestly believe that stopping crunch and paying designers better wouldn't increase development costs?
My point in the first clause was that in any reality where this game getting cancelled or not boils down to people being unionized, the economics of game production are seriously imbalanced.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Microsoft "as a business" needs to prove to consumers why its 'good' for videogames and not worse than it ever has been. Xbox had tons of great original material, as did Xbox 360. Xbox One seems to be dying in a desert, swatting away bottles of water marked Scalebound, Stormfront, and Phantom Dust.
Also MS is notorious for pet project politics like Obsidian is describing. Far worse than in other corporations which obviously have a lot of the same stuff. Sony's Shu shutting down UK studios because they're further away in the world is a prime example. The problem with MS is who are they even left with?
$2.5 billion for Minecraft and thats the only flavour on offer for the foreseeable.
Also MS is notorious for pet project politics like Obsidian is describing. Far worse than in other corporations which obviously have a lot of the same stuff. Sony's Shu shutting down UK studios because they're further away in the world is a prime example. The problem with MS is who are they even left with?
$2.5 billion for Minecraft and thats the only flavour on offer for the foreseeable.
VincentMatts
Member
Different situation. Bargin bins dont allow the customer to try the game out then and there to allow them make a decision on it. They just get to look at box covers and descriptions with images.
At MS, im assuming that someone is trying these games before they get cancelled. Completely different ballgame.
I wonder how much of this is just the vagaries of XBox being a smaller fish in the Microsoft corporate pond. Having worked in a similar situation for years I'm all too familiar with there being some small change in management or corporate strategy and suddenly something you're doing or are in the process of developing suddenly isn't in scope and has to be killed regardless of whether or not it's good or coming along on pace and budget.
This but unironically.
So you're proving my point actually? That Nintendo are a company that take risks and change their main IPs constantly instead of churning out samey sequels.
Still not bothered to tell me why Quantum Break is a risk taking game yet either.
BRocknRolla
Member
I honestly believe that there are ways to make games that are both reasonable investments and likewise don't treat creators as expendable resources. Whether that's unions or some other solution, I don't claim to know, but the evidence for any of it, positive or negative, isn't in this story.
Edit: I agree with your second added point. I was only rebuffing conclusions about unions having a necessarily negative effect.
What? No!
I haven't played it yet (bought it of course) because we are getting so many great CRPGs that my backlog of those now probably spans years. But I heard good things.
Come on. I love old-school CRPGs as much as anyone, but they've got a skeleton crew of like 20 people working on their passion projects, while the rest are working on some F2P stuff, and probably about to get their pink slips.
Fallout: New Vegas sold like 10 million copies. And was a great game. Obsidian deserves to have the resources to match their ambition.
(and frankly, a lot of this probably has to do with how I was pretty let down by PoE.)
New IP's are risks. By your reasoning...the Last Guardian wasn't a risk because of the familiarity of the company who made it.
New IP's are risks. I didn't care for it...but QB wasn't a standard 3rd person shooter. It had mechanics that took it away from that...whether one likes them or not. That goes for putting the show in with the game.
No...the name of Zelda and Mario mixed with the knowledge that we expect it change takes away from the risk you speak of.
Agreed but please note that Skryim and DA are completely different beasts from a sales perspective.
Bits N Pieces
Member
Well they are the Yang to your Ying Xbox Hate Force.
It all balances out in the end.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Wasn't this the cancelation that left obsidian in really bad shape after
LordRaptor
Member
"businessmen not creators" is a Hideki Kayima reference, FYI y'all.
Ask your mom.
Ask your mom.
wapplew
Member
Forza horizon 1 was a good balance of risk and save.
Share asset to lower the risk, use famous IP to help marketing, end with successful venture. MS should do more of those instead of making new IP for the sake of new IP.
A Halo RPG could work, share engine and asset with mainline Halo, a risk worth taking.
Share asset to lower the risk, use famous IP to help marketing, end with successful venture. MS should do more of those instead of making new IP for the sake of new IP.
A Halo RPG could work, share engine and asset with mainline Halo, a risk worth taking.
freeofgreed
Member
As a gamer I don't understand how you can have this mentality at all. If we're going strictly by profit potential. So many of the greatest/most beloved games of all time wouldn't even exist. Yes it's a business but gaming is also a creative industry. And the lack of high profile exclusives isn't exactly helping MS either.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Which I've said many times. Unless a game is guaranteed to sell Halo or Gears numbers out of the gate, it'll either be cancelled or not get a sequel.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Ugh; when are Obsidian going to get an offer from a good publisher?! They always seem to get the short straw. With the growing success of WRPGs hopefully they'll get some good offers to make something original again like Alpha Protocol.
It was the same when Scalebound was cancelled - people saying Platinum were in decline, it's better to cancel it than release a crap game, and so on. There's no need to defend them for everything, even if you really like them as a publisher. You can still be pissed off with decisions they make.
I agree with this. Diversity in their line-up is what they need most of all right now. This year is a good opportunity with allegedly no Gears or Halo coming out.
It was the same when Scalebound was cancelled - people saying Platinum were in decline, it's better to cancel it than release a crap game, and so on. There's no need to defend them for everything, even if you really like them as a publisher. You can still be pissed off with decisions they make.
I agree with this. Diversity in their line-up is what they need most of all right now. This year is a good opportunity with allegedly no Gears or Halo coming out.
Got to have that one sided "Fuck Microsoft" discussion. Might as well go to Twitter and live in the PlaySation Nation echo chamber.
Capitalism is a shitty system, profit motive is bad.
Some of the all time most successful games ever made were at one time in line to be cancelled. Sometimes taking a risk does pay off, fighting that the audience will enjoy the product even if the suits don't understand why.
It's never simple and decisions are never made lightly but things like "crap reveals" are things only the most intense fans get worked up over, not those who make business decisions.
Zeuanimals
Member
Less true for MS? How'd you get to this conclusion? I think what's truer of MS is they're not willing to take risks. Just look at the state of their first party content.
But I also feel bad for them because I have a feeling their fans won't be so receptive to their devs working on something other than the big 3. But if they ever do get their devs to do that, I hope they're willing to do more than a one game deviation. Their fans might come around to the new games in the future too.
LukasTaves
Member
Not what he is saying either, because the project was signed.
He means that if the project miss targets, budget etc and they don't have someone at Ms that believes in that project they will cancel it.
At least this one was cancelled before announcement, but I'd prefer Ms to have champions for the games they announced, even if it meant start all over from scratch.
Correct, but IIRC ME3 is Bioware's biggest game and that sold around 6 million copies. Again I understand what you are trying to say but Skyrim and DA are not at the same level from a sales perspective.
The_Spaniard
Netmarble
Man I remember this. I wasn't there at the time but I heard things when it went down, and the details I did hear about the game sounded really cool. What Feargus said about advocates was exactly what I heard back then, with the person really pushing their project leaving and being replaced with someone else that was luke warm on it. If you aren't passionate about something, you aren't going to stick your neck out for it.
Yet we get a RTS on a console next month.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Given the speed with which those who love to hate Microsoft swoop in on ANY Microsoft related thread, it's not completely unsurprising. You people are relentless in your pursuit to tear down this corporate identity that doesn't care for you in order to better the image of another corporate identity that doesn't care for you.
Every game you've ever enjoyed is a product of capitalism.
LukasTaves
Member
Tell me a publisher that's taking a bigger risk than them this year?
A RTS game for console, Sea of Thieves, and Crackdown 3, a game which is banking on a entire new tech, and it's a sequel to the second game which was made in one year and bombed sales and critics wise.
And they had Scalebound, which was an open world action rpg with coop, something no one else have done yet.
Yeah, Scalebound was cancelled, but you can't say it wasn't risky to invest on that game, or others.
LordRaptor
Member
This is a somewhat disingenous statement based on what that RTS is actually called.
This^
And to be even more specific , he is saying that games that have somebody that believes in it will get more money thrown at them even beyind what they had agreed to do in the first place.
A line is going to be drawn somewhere when they just cut their losses.
Not he doesn't mention how much that game was budgeted and how far over budget they had gone before somebody pulled the plug.
BananasWithGuns
Member
Coming from you of all people?